Roy Baumeister is one of the most respected social psychological researchers alive today, so when I saw that he had given a talk with the title of this post, I had to read it. It has given me much to think about, and of course I’m going to share.

Baumeister starts by noting the obvious: there is a strong thread of man-bashing in the world (especially in academia). But the talk isn’t just a balance-the-scales exercise; it’s a thoughtful look at why various gender differences might be the way they are, from an evolutionary perspective, and whether the things that make men men might not play an important part in the success of cultures (the answer is yes, if you want to skip the rest of this post).

Dr. B suggests that culture is a higher-level strategy developed for improving our odds of surviving. Thus, whatever works for a culture must also help its members reproduce… at least on average (it’s evolution, yo). The history of gender then shifts from men versus women to men and women in groups versus other groups, and against the harsh realities of the physical world. Many gender differences — biological, social, cultural, psychological — can be seen as adaptations resulting from this struggle.

So, how does culture use (exploit) men to perpetuate itself? Baumeister’s answers are embedded in a “radical theory of gender equality. Men and women may be different, but each advantage may be linked to a disadvantage.” This leads to some very thought-provoking evidence and implications, many of which I’m about to summarize (warning: lots of content after the cut): Continue reading →

I been thinkin’ (a dangerous pastime, I know). There’s a preponderance of male-centered form and content in traditional Judaism and Christianity\, something that can be demonstrated by simply counting words in religious texts. However, in a crucial area — mating — the doctrine seems to clearly emphasize something much more tuned to women’s evolutionary best interests. Continue reading →

or something not exactly like that. Research in this month’s issue of Science that finds a significant correlation (among people with strongly-held political views) between certain physical reactions and political leanings. The physical reactions studied had to do with how intensely people responded to being scared by shocking images (photo of a spider on a face, gaping wound filled with maggots, sudden noises etc.).

The strongest responses to the shocking stimuli were witnessed in people who favored “socially protective policies,” which…

…tend to be held by people “particularly concerned with protecting the interests of the participants’ group, defined as the United States in mid-2007, from threats.” These positions include support for military spending, warrantless searches, the death penalty, the Patriot Act, obedience, patriotism, the Iraq War, school prayer and Biblical truth, and opposition to pacifism, immigration, gun control, foreign aid, compromise, premarital sex, gay marriage, abortion rights and pornography.

The paper concluded, “Political attitudes vary with physiological traits linked to divergent manners of experiencing and processing environmental threats.” This may help to explain “both the lack of malleability in the beliefs of individuals with strong political convictions and the associated ubiquity of political conflict.”¹

1. From the Science Daily summary (because I certainly can’t afford a subscription to Science), [↩]

I feel intensely frustrated, watching election coverage. I have located one source of that frustration (there are many): the fact that we pretend elections are about the issues that are being discussed by the overly-cosmeticized talking heads on TV.

So what that there are multiple videos showing Sarah Palin actually supporting the maligned “bridge to nowhere” project, despite repeatedly claiming she has always been a staunch opponent. So what that there is similar evidence showing her boasting about the considerable river of pork she kept flowing into Alaska while Governor. And who cares about her using her government position to enforce personal grudges. Or the multilayered hypocrisy of using her own motherood to further her campaign, supporting intrusive big-government oversight of everyone else’s motherhood, referencing her evangelical Christian beliefs and standards as evidence of her electability, and then insisting that her daughter’s un-evangelically Christian pregnancy is off-limits for reporters. And speaking of reporters… she’ll only do interviews if she’s guaranteed to be treated with deference. Does that count for debates, too? If Biden says something non-deferential, does she take her ball and go home?

Then there’s McCain. It’s almost a sin for mainstream media to question the finer details of his military record (many parts are inspiring, but some iz not so graet ackshully). It also seems a little unpopular, on the big news shows, to ask the very legitimate question of whether McCain’s record (especially the POW treatment he mentions pretty much every time he gets in front of a microphone) is actually relevant to his qualifications to be President. And then there’s Mr. Straight Talk Express’s refusal to answer questions he doesn’t like, and his penchant for using the police to remove troublesome folks who disagree with him (or who are suspected of planning to disagree with him, or who are suspected of photographing or otherwise documenting said police-powered removal) from his “town hall” meetings and… um… national conventions. I guess this is the freedom Senator McCain was fighting for, all those years ago.

I could go on and on, but I’ll skip straight to his latest ad, claiming that Obama supports sex ed for preschoolers or something. Of course it’s either a serious misrepresentation or a flat-out lie, but so what?

Now, I realize that was pretty one-sided. I didn’t say any of the bad stuff that is probably true about Senator Obama, or the even-more-bad-stuff that is almost certainly true about Senator Biden. But I don’t know much of that stuff, since I crossed over to the dark side have become more liberal in many of my political leanings. I know a few things, of course: Obama isn’t as 100% anti-earmarks as he has claimed. His political experience (though not as pathetic as Palin’s) is not as great as some other candidates’. He has played hardball politics behind the scenes while playing Mr. Nice Guy in front of the cameras. And Biden? Well, he’s offended people on both side of the political divide (which kind of makes me wanna like him…).

In a sense, none of this matters. Why? Because the issues are, I submit, not the primary reason most people vote the way they do.  I don’t have research to back this up, but I’d lay good money on it: People vote mostly because of identity. The issues matter to some people a lot, and to most people a little, but the big factor is identity¹. We vote because voting is both a demonstration and a reminder of who we are.

The commonsense model of how people decide whom to vote for might be like this:1. Investigate issues
2. Investigate parties/candidates
3. Vote for best match

Or something like that. And that’s how it should work. The world would be a better place, if it did. But it’s backward, if you’re looking at how things actually work. Here is how I think people really vote:

1. Self-identity.  You know, a knowledge of who we are. This knowledge is often implicit (not conscious), and it’s not as firm as we’d like, most of the time. It also involves, perhaps paradoxically, a heavy dose of ongoing awareness of who our social group is, and what their attitudes and opinions are. Most of us work very hard, daily, to maintain the support and approval of our social group (whether near or far away, physical or virtual), and as a result we absorb their attitudes and opinions. This includes both the positions we take on many issues, as well as our ideas about which issues are important, and how to even frame discussions about the issues.

2. Identity confirmation. Ay, here’s the rub. We’re much more concerned with reassuring ourselves of the validity of our cherished ideas of who we are, than we are about the so-called issues. So, we look for candidates who validate our sense of who we are. If we are Republicans, we look for Republicans. If Democrats, we look for a Democrat. If we see ourselves as fiscal conservatives, we find a candidate who makes us feel like a fiscal conservative. If we think we are environmentalists, then we’re gonna vote Green.

Everything after step 2 is a bit of a shameful (but fascinating) mess. Remember; it’s entirely possible to become doggedly supportive of a candidate with no knowledge of issues, whatsoever. So, we engage in a process of selectively ignoring information that makes our already-chosen candidate seem less than ideal (because we identify with that candidate), and paying attention to information that boosts our favorite. What’s more, we filter not only our information, but our sources of information. We stop hanging around with, or conversing with, people who don’t think our candidate (or party or philosophy) is the cat’s pajamas, spending our time, instead, with people who agree with us. This naturally restricts the kinds of information we have access to. We are careful about where we get our news. Liberals generally don’t watch Fox, and conservatives tend to get fed up with MSNBC (and they certainly would never watch Democracy Now).

See why the issues are irrelevant? Even if you could strap conservative voters into dentists’ chairs, tape their eyeballs open, and show them the video evidence of Sarah Palin contradicting her stump speech claims, the opinions probably would not change. Because it’s not about whether she is telling the truth or not, and it’s not about whether she’d be a good Veep (or, heaven forbid, President) or not. It’s about how her supporters feel about themselves when they think about supporting her, and evidence of misrepresentation is unlikely to change that.

The same goes for all the candidates. It takes very little imagination to picture these same mental/emotional processes happening with the die-hard Hillary supporters who would rather see a Republican in office than Barack Obama, or Obama’s own starry-eyed consumers of his message of (perhaps just a teensy bit unrealistic) Hope and Change, or John McCain’s minions, who seem to imagine a new Golden Age of American Prosperity, if only we can get a tough military guy who claims to be a maverick into office. And Ron Paul? No imagination at all is required to envision the rabid, information-independent support from his camp.

Disagree? Fine. Tell me about it. But make sure your alternate theory accounts for this phenomenon, at least: voting patterns and party affiliations “clump together” geographically and organizationally (i.e., within professions), somewhat independent of social class, ethnicity, and other obvious demographics. If people “voted the issues,” this should not happen.

So, even if we elect the person I think gives us the best chance of not flushing ourselves completely down the toilet in the next 4 to 8 years, I firmly believe I have somewhat accurately outlined the individual voting process.

And that’s why we’re screwed.

1. The psychologically astute reader will note that I ripped this off from Tajfel & Turner, and that this whole rant is an application of Social Identity Theory [↩]

Grackle trapped in Houston Hobby, far out of my reach

Recent report of a woman who remembers everything¹. Every detail of her life for every day, every hour, every minute. Sound like a useful trick? It’s also extremely unpleasant, apparently:

“But I also recall every bad decision, insult and excruciating embarrassment. Over the years it has eaten me up. It has kind of paralysed me.”

“Most have called it a gift. But I call it a burden. I run my entire life through my head every day and it drives me crazy!”

A few individuals with similar conditions have been studied through the decades (e.g., the Soviet neuroscientist Aleksandr Luria’s patient “S“, detailed in The Mind of a Mnemonist), and they generally find ways to use their memory powers for some kind of benefit. But they also tend to report unpleasant side effects, one of which is an inability to “filter” memories. This is Not a Good Thing.

Our long-term memory systems are massively self-organizing, and reducing the probability of recall for certain items is a key part of the organizational strategy. In other words, forgetting is very important. Also, apparently, it makes you happier.

Perhaps I’ll get started on some forgetting, right now. There are some past incidents I would dearly love to become less aware of.

1. Well, since she was 14, anyway [↩]

I took that insane test today. The EPPP. Was I ready? No. I should have been studying all year, but instead I was doing other things. I made a big push over the past six weeks or so, but half of that was interrupted by unforseen Very Bad Things that required all my time, and the other half was marked by my standard not-really-dedicated approach to things.

You are allocated 4 1/2 hours for the test, and I took all but about 15-2o min. of that. I went nice and slow, reading carefully, marking and revisiting confusing items, etc. The good news is that the test questions themselves aren’t (in general) nearly as poorly written as some of those in the Academic Review study materials I’ve been using. The bad news is that this probably didn’t matter. When you don’t got it… you don’t got it. I’m mentally preparing myself for the “you did not pass” letter. Which will arrive in “several weeks.” Most inconvenient.

I was a little too clever for my own good. I tried to keep track of how I was doing by putting little dots on the whiteboard-thing I was given for notes. I put a dot under a smiley face for every item I was almost certain I had answered correctly, a dot under a worried face for each item I figured I had about a 50/50 chance on (this is multiple choice) and a dot under a sad face for those I knew absolutely nothing about. The results:

:-) 113
:-S  70
:-(  38

I know that’s not 225, so I must have counted wrong, but it’s close enough for an estimate. I multiplied the “sure” total by .9, to account for being sure and also wrong (this happens with disconcerting frequency in my life); the “maybe” total by .5 (because I assumed that, overall, I might get half of those right), and the “no freaking clue” total by .25 (because I was just guessing on those).

The result: My estimated score is 147. That sounds OK, until you realize that 158 is the cutoff.  So, I’m pretty sure I FAILD. It’s always possible (though, by definition, unlikely) that my crazy guessing was more successful than I realize, but that’s not a realistic hope.

Oh well. I can do this again in the Fall, I guess.

What it is with the completely irrelevant crap on the EPPP (the national licensure exam for psychology)? It makes no sense to me that (a) aspiring clinical psychologists have to know the details of Industrial-Organizational psychology, or (b) we should be required to have an intimate understanding of all the archaic psychotherapeutic missteps and quackery we know do NOT work and that nobody even practices anymore cough*FREUD*cough.
I figure, if AATBS (the folks who make the exam) were in charge of medical licensing, your family M.D. would have to answer questions like these before he or she would be allowed to see patients:

1. Which of the following is the most accurate representation of leech theory, as prominently endorsed in the 19th century?
a. Leechiotides are responsible for cleansing the patient’s ill humours
b. A goodly leech may purge a stout man’s augured spirits
c. The leech, if applied delicately, will remove all disease-prone impurities from the blood
d. Accurate leech placement is a feather in the cap of any competent physician

2. Galen’s humorific disease model would explain pancreatic cancer as:
a. A stygian compromise between black and yellow bile
b. A confluence of the miniature demons of the gastrointestinal tract, in the context of phlegm and bad blood
c. Unbalanced bilious secretions being overly cooled by the brain
d. The heart fire losing its steam before untimely extraction

3. Under the neoclassical Greek model of women’s medicine prevalent in the early 1900s, which of the following is sufficient reason for removing a woman’s uterus and ovaries, thus imparting better-than-even odds of condemning her to death by sepsis in the weeks of forced convalescence in a filth-ridden and psychopathology-inducing “hospital” following a horrifically nonsterile operation?
a. The wandering uterus is a threat to masculinity everywhere and must be stopped at all costs
b. Melancholy, unfeminine delusions of political equality, or a measurable sex drive are fates worse than death anyway
c. Ours is not to question why; ours is but to do what the only financially solvent member of the household — the husband — tells us to
d. She is a woman; no justification is required

4. Proper chiropractic alignment of the lumbar vertebrae and the sixth chakra will result in which of the following:
a. Improved posture, removal of bodily toxins, mental awakening and self-actualization
b. Improved posture, gait-balance correction, self-actualization and enlightenment
c. Self-actualization, aural cleansing, recovery from autoimmune diseases and viral resistance
d. None of the above; there are only five chakras

5. The ethical code for licensed massage therapists requires biannual:
a. Update of patient personal information and muscle tension profiles
b. Plea-bargain pre-agreements in the case of national or state-level congressional clients
c. Bloodborne pathogen screening and criminal background check
d. Cross-referencing of sex-offender registries with client lists

6. As a medical anthropologist, you are asked to evaluate the physical and mental health of a group of Quiche Maya in the highlands of Guatemala. Your first step should be:
a. Approach the village council and ask for your horoscope according to the Tzolkin
b. Build relationships with the women’s circles
c. Prescribe antibiotics and antiviral agents
d. Declare your allegiance to the traditional healing methods of the shaman

7. Consulting as a marine biologist for West coast fisheries, you encounter evidence of illegal commercial fishing in the salmon migration waters. The best course of action for maximum preservation of the endangered population is:
a. Geotagging a random sample of salmon
b. Relocation of at least 1,000 salmon breeding pairs to freshwater hatcheries
c. Political activism in the context of the Endangered Species Act
d. What the hell do inane questions like this have to do with becoming licensed as a medical doctor

…not that my actual freshman roomie was like this. Sometimes psychological diagnosis is difficult and counterintuitive. Sometimes the categories don’t form “natural kinds” to the untrained eye. However, sometimes they absolutely do. I was struck just now, studying for the EPPP, of how very, very familiar the following diagnostic category is. I think everyone has known at least a couple of people like this in their life:

At least 5 of the following criteria present, in a stable pattern, starting at least in adolescence, and continuing throughout most of life:

• feels uncomfortable when not the center of attention
• often inappropriately sexually seductive or provocative
• emotions are shallow and shift rapidly
• uses speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacks detail
• displays exaggerated emotional expression
• is easily influenced by others
• considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are

Or maybe I have just had some weird (girl)friends.

Question for the day: is psychology a science? Yes¹. But I think people are made very uncomfortable by psychology, so they’d rather believe otherwise. I will explain.

This recurring line of thought was reawakened during a recent argument conversation with some friends, when one of them implied that the results of psychological research could not be applied to the subject at hand, despite the fact that the research I was referring to was addressed directly toward this same subject. The implication of the comment seemed to be that the results were not applicable because they were based on psychological research. We were not actually talking about the viability of psychology as a science, so what I say from here on out isn’t directed to the people I was having this dustup cool, collected exchange of ideas with. See, this has come up many times in other conversations with other people, so this instance was a trigger to remind me of the whole ball of wax.

It’s never fun to have one’s chosen profession dismissed outright, but I believe one must always be ready to admit, if necessary, that one’s activities may have been based on misguided assumptions. As a psychology guy, I’ve thought long and hard about the validity and viability of psychological science. The results of this thinking follow. Feel free to disagree or tell me I’m a total genius.

First question: Is psychology a science? Yes. I laugh heartily at anyone who says it’s not². Science is a method, not a field of study or a set of results. I could study the multicolored spirit auras over psychic tarot readers’ heads, and if I did it with the scientific method, color-aura-ology would be a science (even if it produced no useful results, but that’s a separate issue entirely). I am acutely aware that many psychologists — especially non-researchers– either avoid or willfully ignore the scientific method, but this is a problem endemic to all scientific fields. There are always some wackos, nut jobs, idiots and charlatans³. Many of them have PhDs. Continue reading →

1. As much as anything else is [↩]
2. Ha ha ha! [↩]
3. Notably, there is research suggesting that there are more of these in psychology than in the general public; see Maeder T: Wounded healers. Atlantic Monthly, Jan 1989 [↩]

Another year has come and gone, and here I am writing another online Christmas letter to everyone instead of sending cards like considerate people do. Oh well. I married Alex so she could compensate for such deficits in my personality. (Note: Since writing this, I have migrated my photos to Flickr, so the photo links are all broken. Maybe I’ll fix them, someday).

Here’s how this newsletter works (feel free to skip sections that do not interest you):

1. Christmas Message
2. Things that have happened this year.

Note that you can click the text links or the pictures for extra information. Clicking names of places usually takes you to a map. Clicking pictures will take you to the large version of the picture. Pictures will open in a separate browser window.

Confused? Just click some stuff and see what happens.

Christmas Message

As most of you know, Alex and I are Christian, so Merry Christmas! But if you’re celebrating Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Pagan Winter Feast, or just Many Days Off Work, we wish you fondest and warmest times, as well.

Although we recognize that Christ was probably not born in December, and we are skeptical of the reality of elves, we are happy for the opportunity to join with others in celebrating Jesus’ life and acts. And we’re glad, in general, for the chance to just pause with the rest of the world, Christian or not, and enjoy a few days with friends and family.

So, Happy Holidays. If you’re reading this, we love you. Lots.

Year In Review

The year has been busy, and full of bad news, good news, and just news. Some of the bad news is that Alex and I still do not live together. She lives in Hamilton, Ontario (just north of Buffalo, NY), and I live in Edinburg, TX (just south of everything). We are working very hard to get in the same place this year, but jobs, education and citizenship issues make this a sticky business. We’ll try to keep you informed. For updates (inconsistent, sometimes incoherent, but often with pictures), just check this website from time to time: www.bobbyfiend.com. It’s my personal blog and I try to give some sort of account of what’s happening in my life, on a semi-regular basis. Of course, if that’s not the kind of thing you want to read about, I recommend staying away from this website.

Winter and Spring

January is always a little depressing, as Alex and I have to separate after a month together. We got to see each other a couple of times before May, and I was even in Quebec City for a conference, but that was without Alex (it’s surprising how far apart some of these cities are). I was as sick as a dog the whole time, so it’s just as well. Alex got to go to St. Johns, Newfoundland (which is a million miles from anything) for a different conference, and brought back enough pictures and stories to make me want to go back with her, someday. During the summer. Not the winter.

The semester kept me busy. I seemed to be traveling every other weekend. I made about half a dozen trips, what with visiting Alex and academic responsibilities. In between, I tried to keep my classes and research moving, which is not as easy as I had always imagined it would be. My sweetie, during this time period, was working on her dissertation, (a process I can sympathize with) and also c0-starring in two plays: The Night of the Iguana and Oedipus Rex. Later, in the summer, she and I both helped out (she as an actor and I as a stagehand) in a community production of Good Night Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet.

At the end of Spring, I flew up to Canada (as is my wont), breathed a huge sigh of relief, and settled in for a summer of teaching and hanging out with my wife–something I’m not taking for granted, quite yet (give me another year or two…).

Summer

Summers for the last two years have been my relief periods. Not because of the work load, although it’s reduced somewhat, but because I get to spend three months with my wife. This year, like last, we hung out in her un-air-conditioned third-floor apartment while the temperature inside climbed to about 100 degrees sometimes. Odd that I’m hotter in Ontario during the summer than I would be in my fully-air-conditioned apartment in Texas.

We both enjoyed our academic work (I was teaching an online class and doing research; Alex was still slaving away on the dissertation), and enjoyed just being around each other. We even played some hockey, which was a definite first for me. Good times.

The last half of the summer was a crazy round of travel. We spent a week at Alex’s parents’ lovely cottage, about 3 hours north of Toronto, with our friends Amanda, Scott and Brad, as well as Alex’s brothers, sister, their significant others, her in-laws, niece and nephews, and parents. It was a wonderful time, and it’s hard not to fill this entire page with photos from that experience. While we were there, we played disc golf (hooray!) at a course in South River, and spent a day paddling a canoe in Algonquin Park. I’d go back in a second.

After Northern Ontario, we drove quickly back to Southern Ontario, then flew to the wedding of my friend Scott and his bride, Lisha, in the mountains near Pike’s Peak, Colorado. It was gorgeous up there! Alex and I are keeping an eye out for academic jobs in the area ;).Directly on the heels of this trip–meaning we didn’t even go home first–we flew to Washington and visited my delightful cousin Sharon and her family, then headed to Idaho for the Rogers Family Reunion. We were, honestly, a little concerned at the somewhat low attendance, but within an hour we were enjoying ourselves immensely. Especially fun was playing with our nieces and nephews, most of whom Alex had never met, and all of whom had grown up tons since the last time I saw them. I love them all dearly, and hope to get to hang out with them more, in the future. So, my siblings need to visit me in Texas more often. And bring your kids.

As you might have guessed, after the Colorado-Washington-Idaho trip, it was back to Ontario, whirlwind unpacking-then-packing, and down to Texas to start the school year once again, and lose my wife for another semester.

Fall

Fall is exciting and depressing at the same time. Academics like Alex and I tend to have a hopeful, happy feeling at the beginning of every school year, but we also have to leave each other after three months spent getting used to living together (almost like real married people!). So, to ease the pain, Alex goes down with me to Texas and hangs out for a couple of weeks or more, and we get to be a normal husband and wife for a little longer. This time, we got adventurous (her idea) and camped on the beach at South Padre Island. It was a wonderful experience, although I’ve heard since that it may not be entirely safe, despite the fact that it’s a state park. So, deep sigh, we probably won’t be doing that again any time soon, at least just the two of us. But we enjoyed the experience immensely, and we love the beach. We found great peace in putting our folding chairs in the shallow breakers and zoning out for hours while the waves tickled our feet.

It seems that right after Alex left I got a new cat. Sigh. Not that I needed one. His name is Moses (because he came out of the reeds), and I found him near a reservoir outside Edinburg. The whole story is explained if you click here. Anyway, now I have two cats. And they both live with my sweetie in Canada, because it’s impractical to get care for them when I leave for a week or a month or a summer. Despite his unplanned appearance, I still like Moses. Good cat. And I miss both my feline monsters when I’m in Texas.

Work is work. I’m finally collecting data on a project that should have been done half a year ago, and I’ve applied for two more grants–one small and the other very large (10 universities, about 100 investigators, and tens of millions of dollars from the Department of Homeland Security). I keep busy with our little Psychology Department’s hopes for a PhD program, advising students, teaching classes, and working on my research. It’s a little more than your average full-time job, but I don’t mind. I’m trying to build up some momentum that will carry me a while when Alex and I finally live together and I feel like having true 40-hour work weeks for a bit.

In October, I was invited to be part of a university expedition to Monterrey, Nuevo Le�n, M�xico. About 20 of us met with some officials of a couple of universities down there, and that is turning into an interesting collaborative experience. I hope I get to do some cross-border research, cause Monterrey is a very cool place. I’m looking forward to going back.

Alex and I are on the job market, and it’s an unpleasant experience. Academic politics are active, sometimes irritating, and often confusing. I’m reminded of my father, quoting Napoleon, telling me not to assume malice when incompetence is the more likely answer… We don’t know if Alex will get the job she has applied for at UTPA (where I work), or if we will both be offered jobs at one of the half-dozen places we both applied to, together. I love my work, but I’ll give it up if I can be with my wife. If none of our plans pan out, we’ll be thinking fast. Plan C might be a bit creative. We’ll have to wait and see.

Alex has stayed busy, trying to regulate her very disobedient sleeping schedule, working tirelessly on her dissertation, playing hockey, and even rehearsing for another play (she’s Lady MacBeth). I think she’s at her best when she’s got a few irons in the fire. We have kept in touch as much as possible, visited once or twice this semester, and are now together for nearly a month, which is lovely. Phone calls and seeing each other once a month don’t really cut it, sometimes.

It’s the winter holiday season, now, and that has always been a time to try to reconnect with family and friends I don’t talk to very much. I’ve always been terrible at keeping lines of communication open, so I hope you’ll forgive me for the generic flavor of this message, and know that I still care about you. Happy Holidays.